1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, for having entitled away the wife of the complainant. Four points have been taken before us, one of which has reference to sentence. The only two to which it is necessary to refer are, that there is no proof of the marriage, and that there is no proof that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe the woman to be the wife of the complainant. As regards the proof of the marriage, we find there are statements which, if believed, would be sufficient to prove the marriage because two witnesses speak of the giving of the woman in marriage; but, as regards the accused's knowledge that the woman was a married woman, there is no evidence on the record to justify that finding. The learned Judge says that it must be presumed that the accused, when he proposed to marry the woman, must have made enquiries about her and come to know that she was a married woman. We are not prepared to accept this view of the learned Judge. There must be evidence of some kind from which the inference could be drawn that the accused know the woman to be a married woman before there could be a conviction under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. We must, therefore, set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the petition and direct that he be released from bail.